Ford Hits Back: Falcon 11 Ways Better Than Commodore

[JoeT]

Ford Hits Back: Falcon 11 Ways Better Than Commodore

Joe Kenwright
9 August 2006
www.carpoint.com.au

Ford looks set to reveal an upgrade to its BF Falcon range to take on Holden's billion dollar baby. In the meantime it says its current car is better in 11 ways.

Ford's plans to counter the VE Commodore look set to be revealed at a special announcement today (Thursday, August 10) in Melbourne.

CarPoint believes ongoing concerns that last year’s important BF update didn’t look any different from the BA will be addressed in the 'BF2' update. Indeed, it is likely that these changes were deliberately held over for maximum impact after the VE launch.

While there won't be any new sheet metal, for what is still only a Series II facelift, the BF2 will feature more 'soft part' appearance changes than usual. Expect different grilles and detail changes in the moulded fascias front and rear.

The news comes hot on the heels of the publication of what purports to be a leaked document from Ford's sales department on popular Holden forum, LS1.com.au. The document, which Ford sources have not discounted, highlights what Ford says are its Falcon range's advantages over the new VE Commodore.

Because the Ford memo highlights the BF's fuel economy and automatic transmission advantages over the VE, expect the BF2 to consolidate this lead with the offer of the benchmark ZF six-speed auto as an option at Falcon's XT entry-level at nominal cost. Without any other changes, this will deliver an estimated 0.7lt/100km fuel economy advantage.

The combination of Ford's inline six and six-speed auto previously available only at XR6 and upper levels, will also allow the base Falcon to deliver better drivability and potentially better performance than Holden's V6 models.

To match this combination, VE buyers currently have to stretch to Calais or SV6 level to access the High Output V6 and its five-speed auto, the economy of which cannot match the Ford.

At XR6 level in the current BF series, Ford's standard inline six with six-speed auto delivers 10.2lt/100km combined fuel economy figures versus 11.3lt/100km for the VE SV6 five-speed auto and 10.9lt/100km for the base VE Omega four-speed auto.

Although Holden has matched the current base BF Falcon XT figure of 10.9lt/100km, expect Ford to reach or break the definitive 10lt/100km barrier for the BF2 XT with further tweaks and the optional six-speeder. This would enable Ford to claim economy that not only betters Commodore but matches Toyota's new four-cylinder Camry.

CarPoint sources confirm that Ford had already been looking beyond the VE Commodore in its own quest to win back sales from smaller cars by offering comparable fuel economy with the bonus of large car comfort and safety. However, as the six-speed auto option at base XT level will undermine some exclusivity of its top-selling XR6 model, Ford will be forced to upgrade the BF2 XR6 to retain its strong 'user chooser' and private buyer following.

It is doubtful whether Ford will add its DSC (Dynamic Stability Control) across the BF2 range as standard to match Holden's across the board fitment of ESP.

It is CarPoint's bet that Ford will be more intent on maintaining a substantial price advantage to deliver lower lease payments for fleet and salary sacrifice buyers. However, Holden's sneaky re-positioning of the VE Omega and Berlina will force Ford to revise its feature mix at Futura and Fairmont levels while using its six-speed auto to best advantage.

The recent launch of the Turbo Territory without styling changes suggests that the Territory will not undergo similar appearance changes. However, it could benefit from the fuel economy improvements and the wider availability of the six-speed auto further down the track.

A summary of the 11 areas where Ford claims it has the VE on the ropes include:

1. VE Commodore will not perform as well as the BF Falcon.
2. VE Commodore's Alloytec engine is not as technologically advanced as Falcon's Barra 190.
3. VE Commodore does not offer six-speed automatic transmission on any six-cylinder models.
4. VE Commodore is larger and heavier than its predecessor. BF Falcon can achieve fuel consumption as low as 10.2lt/100km on the Barra 190 engine with six-speed automatic transmission.
5. VE Commodore does not currently offer a dedicated LPG or dual fuel LPG option.
6. Air-conditioning is a $2000 optional extra on the VE Commodore Omega. Air-conditioning comes standard on the BF Falcon XT.
7. BF Falcon comes with a full-size spare wheel standard across the range including wagon and Ute (excluding E-Gas).
8. BF Falcon has a luggage capacity of 504lt with a full-size spare wheel compared to VE Commodore at 496lt.
9. The cost of replacing original tyres has increased on VE Commodore. A set of four new tyres on the VE Commodore Omega costs $928 RRP (or $232 RRP each) compared to the BF Falcon XT, Futura or Fairmont at $569.52 RRP (or $142.38 RRP each)
10. BF Falcon offers a 60/40 split fold-down rear seat back.
11. There is no VE wagon or Ute until late 2007. GM-Holden Ute no longer offers a Chassis Cab (i.e. One Tonner) while Falcon Ute offers a full range of XL, XLS and RTV Chassis Cabs

New Ford Falcon BF2

[jro4566]

Looks VERY dated compared to the new Holdens...

[racy]

On looks alone, the Ford is a dud compared to anything. Style-wise, its not even in the same league as the Holden.

Ford isn't gonna make a turnaround with flat out ugly cars. GM tried that game for 20 years...didn't work.

[Mikkoo]

Originally Posted by racy

On looks alone, the Ford is a dud compared to anything. Style-wise, its not even in the same league as the Holden.

Ford isn't gonna make a turnaround with flat out ugly cars. GM tried that game for 20 years...didn't work.

Couldn't agree with you more. GM realized that great design helps sell vehicles in a major way. Growing up in the 1960's and 70's, I eagerly awaited the new GM models because I knew their designs would be exciting and fresh. They led the way in design and everyone else followed. I look forward to seeing this again in GM vehicles in the future.

[asim]

Originally Posted by jro4566

Looks VERY dated compared to the new Holdens...

I agree, whats with Aussies and their dated looking cars?

[swegeon]

11 points where the falcon is better than holden. I like #8 an extra 8 litres of space,thats like a soccer ball in volume!ford are as usual 5 years behind.

[mmciau]

5. VE Commodore does not currently offer a dedicated LPG or dual fuel LPG option.


That I believe is incorrect - the VE can be fitted with dual fuel at assembly.

It took Holden some time to develop an injected form of LPG and that was available on the last 9 months on the VZ Executive.

Mike

[Aych Es Vee]

wtf at that 'spy pic' ?

if thats real, then theres more of a change between BF and BF2 then there was between BA and BF......

[Richard1098]

Originally Posted by asim

I agree, whats with Aussies and their dated looking cars?

The platform was released in 1998, and last updated 4 years ago. That's why it looks dated. It'll be replace by an all new platform in a year or so. But this new model actually looks older than the current car.

[from oz]

I, REALLY, do not like that!!! They are going backwards from the BA something chronic.

[Gixx]

Originally Posted by from oz

I, REALLY, do not like that!!! They are going backwards from the BA something chronic.

You boys from Queensland really talk funny.

Signed,
Larry the Cable Guy

http://www.carbuyersnotebook.com/archives/larry1.jpg

[from oz]

Originally Posted by Gixx

You boys from Queensland really talk funny.

Signed,
Larry the Cable Guy

http://www.carbuyersnotebook.com/archives/larry1.jpg

Ummm.... thankyou?????? I'll take that as a compliment, whether you like it or not.

[jlt0x]

Why does the pic of the Falcon remind me of the new Volvo S80?

[Aych Es Vee]

I really like that Falcon.

[jwrebholz]

The problems relating to options could be easily fixed. (make full-size spare, AC, six-speed standard on all models). the trunk capacity issue is negligible. The weight issue..is a problem. I'm not happy that GM's cars (everyone's cars really) are getting porkier and porkier. Some aluminum panels would alleviate the weight problem to a degree, but it'd cost more. (what we really need is a way to produce cheap carbon fiber). the whole tire cost thing is a stupid argument to make and shows Ford is grasping at straws. The tires are going to last a couple years at least, and who knows what'll happen to the prices by then?